It was Moe Lane who said it first that I saw, and it's looking more and more correct: those SEALs need to lawyer up, preferably with somebody familiar with international law. Somewhere in the distance the sound of a bus being started up is faint but distinct.

Good. My rule would've been "if he's breathing, assume he's about to kill you", rather than giving him the naked way out. As long as he's dead, I'm happy.I really can't believe he's not releasing the photo, though. I assume that if we don't get it through FOIA or some such appeal to transparency under Obama, the next Adminstration will let it out. It's History, not the President's personal trophy, and the nation has a right to see it.

Somebody forgot to tell Obama that the afterglow of a successful operation last but a few days.

From where I've been sitting, and correct me if I'm wrong, the general MSM didn't quite spoon with Him after this. This was too big a story and it forced most of them, against their daily grooves, to actually fall back on whatever innate journalistic training they may have. I don't a whole lot of comfort zone out there and, in fact, the snide comments are starting to fly that the WH press sec might not have the gravitas for the job.

He'll be under a bus in short order if this torrent of bad PR doesn't settle down asap.

Would anyone fault Obama if he said "We wanted him dead. I gave the order to kill him, and I don't regret it. We are at war with Al Qaeda, and it is my belief that the leaders of Al Qaeda should have more to fear from us than the foot soldiers. And if you have a problem with that, you can kiss my @$$".Seriously, would anyone (besides his base) object to that?

Smart enough to fool Ann and Meade. Their latest twist is a fine example of why, if you're not a real conservative - or, especially, a critical thinker - you really shouldn't be fucking with politics. Here, let me put it into terms they'll understand:

From an intelligence perspective, it would have been infinitely better to capture Osama alive and extract everything he knows via interrogation. It is criminal that Obama ordered that Osama be killed rather than attempt to take Osama alive.

The left hates the interrogations and Guantanamo so Obama has been killing Al Qaeda leaders rather than violate their rights by sticking them in Guantanamo and interrogating them. As a result, our intelligence is drying up. The lead to Osama's courier (which led us to Osama) came via interrogation of a captured Al Quedan. Dead Al Quedans provide no leads.

They shot him because Panetta told them to. BHO really had very little to do with it.

I read a long account from a supposed insider that describes a very opposed Valarie Jerrett basically keeping the President from making a final decision. According to this source, it was a Panetta/Clinton/Gates cabal that made the final decision for him and basically forced him along.

I have never seen an image of OBL without a firearm slung over his shoulder or within arms reach. It has been widely reported before that he was rumored to wear a suicide vest at all times so as to never be taken alive.

But, as long as Obama is in office, the folks at Pajamas Media had better watch their back,...

Yes, read this from Roger Simon and tell me if it doesn't ring true. Especially if you know anything about Valerie Jarrett. Were you aware of how much influence she has on BHO?

Agree with everyone wondering how the WH could have taken a silk purse like this and rapidly turned it into a pig in a wallow.

Finally, this was a kill operation from start to finish. Even Eric Holder had that precognition. Ask yourself if the Paks really could have not noticed this whole thing for 45 minutes. They wanted him dead, Obama would have been sick to his stomach with indecision about where to try OBL and the quality of the Koran in his cell.

So the killing went well and then they started fouling it up shortly thereafter.

Just read that OBL's last tweet has been translated and released - BRB - someone is at the door.

I just checked and there is actually a Dominos Pizza in that area. He could have met them at the door with cash in hand, ready for his triple-cheese melt with (don't tell anyone) sausage and bacon. New York-style, of course.

There will always be a clamoring by a small but loud segment of the American population that wants to submit to world government. The vast majority of Americans would never stand for such a thing, even if they say they want an International Criminal Court.

Americans would be enraged if any American soldier or politician was ever tried for war crimes. It would be bloody, Jacksonian war. Senators and members of the House understand this. So does President Clinton. Thus his "failure" to submit the ICC to the Senate.

I'm saying if the PR on this turns south for Obama I would not hesitate to think that he would throw the Frogmen under his well used bus to save his own bacon. Weren't there issues with this administration poking around the CIA interrogators with threats to prosecute waterboarders. I am simply saying that if I was in charge of the raid I would have ensured that there was no video of the actual kill. I do not trust Obama.

"Not so, Mike. Clinton did not even bother to submit the ICC to the Senate for advice and consent. A very politically astute thing."

I assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the political astutness refers to the fact that if he had submitted it to the Senate, it would have ocassioned a political argument, which implies that there were supporters, in the Senate and on the left in general.

I assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the political astutness refers to the fact that if he had submitted it to the Senate, it would have ocassioned a political argument, which implies that there were supporters, in the Senate and on the left in general.

It would have been voted down something like 90-10. What was politically astute was for Clinton to sign it, thus placating Euro weenies but not submitting it to the Senate, thereby assuring that (1) it could never become law, and (2) he wouldn't face a firestorm of criticism.

Whatever Clinton's faults, he was a major-league politician. Obama could learn much.

There isn't going to be any political fallout from this. We on the right are laughing at various inanities and the general hypocrisy of the left. But very few are upset with the outcome, even Obama's role.

Those on the left are mumbling objections so the next time they go after a Republican for the same offense they have something to show they aren't hypocrites. After each journalist's obligatory wave to principle they'll drop the matter. There's no reason to discuss the media separately.

The SEALs don't need lawyers, and Obama's political advisers are having wet dreams some international court asserts jurisdiction so Obama gets his Sister Souljah moment.

The media will follow up on the details until the narrative coalesces around a few stable talking points, then it dies until election time.

Unlike the rest of the Republican field, Sen. John McCain has said he would like to see the United States join the international court, although he would first require more protections for U.S. personnel. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have taken similar wait-and-see positions, while most of the other Democratic hopefuls have called for full U.S. membership.

We should appreciate the commitment of fighting men of this quality to following orders, but wearing a suicide vest around the house? Please.

I have no sympathy for a monster like bin Laden, but this was an assassination, pure and simple. I am uncomfortable with the dissembling surrounding it. I am particularly uncomfortable with the killing of unarmed members of his retinue - if current reports are accurate.

This guy had to be an intelligence treasure trove. Why was the only option to silence him? In essence, to martyr him?

Then you are a tool and an idiot. The United States has a law against exactly this action. The American Service Members Protection Act. Please do look into it before spouting further. Thanks.

Oh so our servicemen can do as they please anywhere they please to anyone at any time because there's a law that says so. A serviceman who disregards the ROE and Geneva Conventions can expect no discipline? Sure thing.

Read much? If there is American-decided immunity for American "personnel," who in their right mind could want to shun the ICC? It would be at the very worst a tremendous asset for American imperialism.

I get the sense, based on the googling you spout about, that you haven't spent much time on this issue and don't understand the nuances.

Oh, if only you could see me laughing and pointing at the moment! You're Rielle Hunter telling John Edwards he's Ghandi and MLK. Insane. As the resident expert on cultism and belief systems I can tell you, without hesitation, that you, Madam, are severely delusional. If you missed the unethical media blitzkrieg of the last election - and, even three years later, haven't sorted out how they accomplished this disaster - you are not even remotely attached to reality.

Oh so our servicemen can do as they please anywhere they please to anyone at any time because there's a law that says so. A serviceman who disregards the ROE and Geneva Conventions can expect no discipline? Sure thing.

The United States may choose to allow any American personnel to be subject to local law. Or not. The U.S. may also prosecute under American criminal or military law.

Are you really suggesting that the Obama administration is going to turn Navy SEALS over to a foreign government or prosecute them under military or criminal law?

You are perhaps the biggest idiot ass clown ever to find a way here. Impressive.

"Further, the Secretary of State does not make U.S. law, not even close. Nor does the First Lady."

The women "came close" to being President.

I don't disagree with your point that there is much opposition to the U.S. joining the ICC, nor do I disagree that Bill Clinton was a smart politician. I also agree with Scott that the ICC is a talisman of the left, and it good at this juncture to point out how incedibly stupid it would be for the U.S. to join.

Exactly. Even at the state level where I work we have a contingency plan for if things go right...

My advice would have been: President makes minimum announcement (less "I" less detail) that night, NOTHING from Admin. for 8 hours until full debriefing, NOTHING about captured docs and computers, NOTHING about exactly whodunnit (Biden, you idiot), finally midafternoon next day release a timeline of events that is for sure.

A few hours of partial mystery would have served the President well. Take your time and keep retractions to a minimum, people. Keep your eyes on Nov. 2012 and not netx week's polls, fools.

People, listen to me. There is no way on earth that the United States will ever join the International Criminal Court if there is even a remote risk that an American solider or politician could be prosecuted. This is because Americans would never stand for it. This is also because Presidents and Senators are not stupid. They would be putting exactly their own asses on the line.

President makes minimum announcement (less "I" less detail) that night, NOTHING from Admin. for 8 hours until full debriefing, NOTHING about captured docs and computers, NOTHING about exactly whodunnit (Biden, you idiot), finally midafternoon next day release a timeline of events that is for sure.

That would be ideal, but it'll never happen. DC is filled with people filled with self-importance who love to leak info to credulous journalists. Leaking means you're important! Look at me! I know something! Receiving leaks means you're important! Let me take your junk out of my mouth so I can write this important information down!

It would be interesting to see that happen, a news blackout for hours after an event. I suspect there would be loud complaining from the self-important DC Press Corps.

Early in the Iraq War, there was an instance of this sort of second guessing. A news video guy was embedded with Marines and he got a shot of a Marine killing a jihadi who had been playing dead as they went through an enemy house room by room. There was a big furor because the Marine didn't let him "surrender." The Marine was court martialed, as I recall, due to senior officers getting wee weed up about the media.

You are dealing with an enemy that wants to die. As Schwartzkopf said in the first Gulf War, "They want to see Allah and we are trying to arrange a meeting."

You are perhaps the biggest idiot ass clown ever to find a way here. Impressive.

Language! I can't believe the smartest guy on the internet is reduced to simple vulgarity. Also don't put words in my mouth, I wrote what I meant which is simply that I do not trust Obama to do the right thing very often. It is now, after a successful mission, inconceivable that a SEAL would get disciplined for the raid. However, flying in there was no guarantee of success and in order to cover my ass I would have made sure there was no video of the actual attack because this administration has a history of throwing people under the bus.

Tell us about all the successful, expedient prosecutions at The Hague. I'll wait.

Can you say Obama-Care? I knew you could.

Obamacare is mildly unpopular. A lot of people like it. Are you really suggesting that the arrest by a world court of an American politician of service member would be similarly mildly unpopular? If so, you are brain dead. Such a scenario would be grossly disgusting to 85 percent of Americans.

Also, what you fail to understand is that the United States will never accede to an international criminal court that allows the prosecution of Americans. It's simply not going to happen, precisely because members of Congress are -- how to put it? -- remarkably more politically astute than you are.

Language! I can't believe the smartest guy on the internet is reduced to simple vulgarity.

“Be not intimidated… nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.” - John Adams

My second post said "I do not trust Obama". Distrust of the administration was central to every one of my posts. You not especially good at reading comprehension are you? h yeah, and I take back that thing about you being the smartest guy on the internet, it appears you're not too bright at all.

I'm not angry. I'm just aghast at the fantastic stories people are apparently willing to believe in. I notice, though, that there is almost always an inverse relationship between additional knowledge in a subject area and willingness to believe fantastic stories.

Did they think Osama just lounged around the house with a suicide vest on beneath his jammies? I guess it makes sense if you're paranoid. But he lived in the middle of Pakistan, right next to their military academy. That doesn't sound like paranoia.

The whole business makes Americans and Obama in particular look kind of cowardly. As if Obama thought all Americans were too scared and NIMBY to put up with a trial of bin Laden near them, and Obama cravenly felt he had to cater to that by making sure bin Laden wasn't captured alive, lest he be forced to make a difficult decision or some act of violence near the trial screw up his political future. And the solemn ceremonies to me seem a kind of ridiculous effort to make up for the earlier truth-stretching and lack of bravery.

It's not that people expect transparency. It's that something other than the usual flurry of lies and misinformation either disseminated by, or left uncorrected by, the White Hoouse seems in order.

Additionally, this is a major decision, supposedly by the Commander-In-Chief, and it deserves public assessment just as other major decisions do. E.g., Who says killing was better than capturing? And Why?

The idea that the CIA/Seals must give out video proof which must also be thrown out to the Blogging mob is weird. By that standard, the use of stealth technology in aircraft design and encoded military communications must either be a stupid blunder or an Un-American act. Secrets are kept in wartime because Lose digital lips sink ships.

For those that haven't noticed yet: we will be at "wartime" for the rest of our lives.

Folks are also setting up phony dichotomy: either the government completely opens up its doors during wartime or it gives absolutely no evidence of its claims aside from government proclamations. Don't you think there is a middle ground here? Stop kicking around straw men.

To quote our VP: this is a big fucking deal.

Erring on the side of transparency **in this particular instance** is called for.

The idea that the CIA/Seals must give out video proof which must also be thrown out to the Blogging mob is weird.... Secrets are kept in wartime because Lose digital lips sink ships.

C'mon, TG, what wartime secrets are jeopardized by videos of a home invasion by armed men accompanied by dogs resulting in the shooting of the occupants?

I don't think release of the video should be necessary either, but for all the lying that has gone on about what happened.

But "national security," or some such, is a bogus excuse for not correcting the record. Believe it or not, there are people in this country who will not vote for a President who ordered the shooting of unarmed people - even OBL.

Exactly. The "Gap"! What did the president know and when did he know it? I'm sure they thought that photo made them look all serious about National Security. Apparently Hilary was stifling a cough while they all stared at a blank screen.

If you would have told me this would be the result after the high of Sunday night, I would have called you an Obama-hating fantasist.

Keeping everything secret just because you can is just counterproductive. Secrecy creates a vaccum which is filled by rumors and conspiracies. It makes even the most trivial snippets of information valuable enough to be worth leaking, and it makes people who know things (and there are lots of them) careless and confused about distinguishing what's really important and what's not.

It's all about propoganda, in the true, morally-neutral meaning of the term. You release information in such a way as to harm the enemy, and withhold information that would help them. The corpse photos would not help the bad guys, but it would help us. So release them.

(The Crypto Jew) What secrets would be “betrayed” by me filming naked sorority girls in the shower and releasing it on the Internet?

What ships would be sunk? In your case? So basically you’re arguing that Usama and his estate have to privacy in this case, and unless they sign a waiver the photo’s may not be released of is it the SEALS (ALL CAP’s folks) whose privacy is sacrosanct? Or is it that your analogy is hopelessly bad and mayhap you ought to start again? Orr to carry it further you don’t HAVE an argument, but merely a sentiment, a prejudice, on this matter? As I said, I don’t need the OpOrd and Annexes, a film of the PCI, the Mission Brief or Brief-back…how about just showing me the D@mned photo of a dead mass-murderer?

Further, how about the WH stops acting like an “assassination” would cause international legal vapours! We ASSASSINATED Usama, no loss…he didn’t need to be armed, reach for a gun, be suspected of having a suicide vest, or any other foolish and tortuous explanation. He was a “bad man” we wanted him dead and now he IS. As Jim Treacher said, “I don’t care if he had a tray of fresh-baked cookies in his hand….”

(The Crypto Jew) Do highly classified government operations not have some expectation of privacy similarly?

The government doesn’t have a RIGHT to privacy, or secrecy, q.v., First Amendment. It has a NEED for privacy or secrecy…it’s not the same thing. The DEFAULT position ought to be transparency, not SECRECY. Again the Federal Government needs to show a Compelling Interest in NOT revealing the photo’s, not say “We don’t WANT to show the photo’s.”

I would grant that there is a compelling interest in NOT revealing the operator’s faces or names, a compelling interest in NOT revealing tactics, techniques, and practices of covert operations…but I DON’T see the Compelling Interest in not releasing the photo. A case could be made, I’m sure, but the government needs to be making it. Not just having folks like you talk about the need for secrecy or privacy.

Oh please, does anyone think for one second that there is a legitimate security concern regarding releasing the photo? That's a joke. Killing him and a few of his buddies might piss somebody in Al Qaeda off, but a snapshot after the deed? Give me a break. Obama is keeping it as his special little treasure (or to be leaked when he needs to remind people he's the second coming of MacArthur).

(The Crypto Jew) British SAS were whacking IRA members left and right back in the good old days and I don't recall the international community getting their dander up over it.

I remember one case, in Spain…At a Petrol Station, dude or dudes (PIRA) get ‘whacked” by someone (Cough*SAS*COUGH) and the Spanish and British Labour Party went @peSh!te! Of course, Thatcher was PM, and Spain was grumpy, as usual, about Gibraltar. So to be fair, the International Community has been known to get their dander up, depending who got whacked and who did the whacking.

Joe -- Please save the semantic quibbles for undergraduate papers. The fact is that the government can, under certain circumstances, keep information from the public, at least for a limited amount of time. That's the law.

I stand by my contention, stated in previous threads, that the photos will come out unofficially. If I am right, then this big fuss about not wanting to release them makes plenty of sense.

But anyway, you should race to the courthouse and file the FOIA claim. What's stopping you?

edutcher wrote: PS Why are Marshal and hombre recycling their comments from Monday?

Although I'm not sure of the comments to which you refer, I appreciate your attentiveness.

Assuming without agreeing that you are correct, is there nothing redundant about the Professor's post? Have the issues under discussion Monday been resolved? Are all the commenters today the same as Monday?

(The Crypto Jew) The fact is that the government can, under certain circumstances, keep information from the public, at least for a limited amount of time. That's the law.

I stand by my contention, stated in previous threads, that the photos will come out unofficially. If I am right, then this big fuss about not wanting to release them makes plenty of sense.

But anyway, you should race to the courthouse and file the FOIA claim. What's stopping you?

Why should I even HAVE to file a FOIA claim? And no it’s NOT just semantic quibbles…reverse it, do you have a RIGHT to a firearm or just a NEED for a firearm? If the former, then the default position is you can have one, if the latter you have to demonstrate that need and if the “need” is not great enough, no firearm…it’s not a QUIBBLE, it’s a d@mned big difference!

(The Crypto Jew) Dershowitz: Release OBL Photos or Face LawsuitMay 5, 2011 2:44 P.M. By Andrew Stiles Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz renders his two opponents — Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor at Guantanamo and Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times — speechless as he makes the case for why the photos of a dead Osama bin Laden should be released, dismantling every one of their counterpoints in the process. He suggests that newspapers, should they elect to sue the government to obtain the photos, “may very well win.” But will any have the gumption to do so? (Or at least, more than had the gumption to publish the Muhammad cartoons?)

edutcher wrote: PS Why are Marshal and hombre recycling their comments from Monday?

Although I'm not sure of the comments to which you refer, I appreciate your attentiveness.

Assuming without agreeing that you are correct, is there nothing redundant about the Professor's post? Have the issues under discussion Monday been resolved? Are all the commenters today the same as Monday?

And, finally, wtf are you, the arbiter of repetition?

No, shiloh, J, Jeremy, or whomever else you are, I just thought you might have some dazzling new insight.

(The Crypto Jew) So you agree. Great. However, you forgot to add the obvious point that the Constitution is merely law.

No it’s not, and I shouldn’t have to EXPLAIN that to you, if you’re so smart….it is the philosophic framework of government, that is Social Contract for America…ObamaCare is LAW, the Assault Weapons Ban is LAW, the First Amendment far more….

(The Crypto Jew) Joe -- The First Amendment could be changed today by a simple two-thirds majority of the House and Senate, and then two-thirds of the state legislatures.

The Constitution itself was changed in exactly this way to add the First Amendment.

And, of course, the original Constitution of 1789 had some serious, disgusting flaws.

Law is law. Get off the high horse.

I’m sorry you’re obviously an idiot if you believe that…I mean sure it takes 2/3 of two houses and 2/3 of the states, and a lengthy process only accomplished 26 times in the US’ history, but it’s law…like any other.

What were the disgusting flaws, please don’t trot out he the “3/5ths” of a human being argment…..

I agree the Constitution is harder to change, which is good. That said, we'd be better off if Congress and the states took control of the Constitution away from the unelected courts by changing it and clarifying it more often. Or not, because then we are even more subject to the passions of the electorate and all that.

Tough questions. But let's see things for what they are, and not some mystical thing that they are not.

Eric Holder's politicized justice department continues its investigation of CIA interrogators for using enhanced interrogation techniques. So, whoever said I would not trust the Obama administration on this certainly has a point notwithstanding Seven's disjointed rants on this thread. Here is a WSJ opinion column re Holder's investigation:

Surely you know that the lower the fractional representation granted to states for their slave populations, the greater the political power of the whites in those states that would have resulted. It's not as if blacks were actually getting 3/5 of any vote. That's why the argument is fundamentally, grotesquely stupid.

To placate them, they wanted slaves COUNTED 100% FOR THE PURPOSES OF REPRESENTATION IN THE US HOUSE….the rule was not about “personhood” merely how to calculate population…Mississippi wanted to count ALL slaves for population, but NONE as citizens. It LIMITED the power of slave holding states….try reading the Constitution and reading some history, and leave the TPM talking points at home.

Are you sure you have the right comment? Perhaps you think my prediction doesn't appropriately weigh the controversy of the last two days?

If the latter, let me assure you it does. Nothing has changed since Monday. A few knuckle-headed moves by the administration which promised a return to professional government. But mistakes without serious consequences don't mean much. Americans don't care.

So we get a few laughs that Obama's hubris was so completely unwarranted. Some details such as his being unarmed are nice as they make it harder for the left to differentiate this from their attacks on Republicans the next time we kill a terrorist. And the next time it happens we point out that killing terrorists is just like killing Bin Laden, only before the WTC goes down.

The only meaningful political outcome is that we got Bin Laden. Everything else is a crumb.

(The Crypto Jew) The Slave Trade Act was passed by the British Parliament on 25 March 1807, making the slave trade illegal throughout the British Empire. The Act imposed a fine of £100 for every slave found aboard a British ship

After the 1807 act, slaves were still held, though not sold, within the British Empire. ….On 28 August 1833, the Slavery Abolition Act was given Royal Assent,

SM, Maybe you don't visit the sites where the "3/5 of a human" meme is thrown about, but I don't think it's generally just an attack on slavery. Otherwise we'd hear a lot more about the Missouri Compromise on the internet than we do.

Seriously, who's debating the merits of slavery? You want to denounce the Founders for tolerating slavery, go right ahead. But as you said, that was a founding compromise that remained contentious until resolved by war. That would have been true whether the "3/5" clause was "1/5" or "8/5." The "3/5" thing is just a stupid rhetorical trick that's mutated into the propagation of genuine ignorance.

That pic was no more an attempt at transparency than Michelle's bust-a-move.

Look at it with discernment my friend. It says "We are Serious." It advances the "Obama personally supervised the raid" narrative. They chose it from dozens or hundres of images for just that purpose. It added no infromation to the situation.

I don't think there was anything wrong about putting it out, either. Just another PR photo.

SM, I don't disagree with those points. All I'm saying is that in certain circles the "3/5" clause is waved around as if the Founders did some pseudoscientific assay of relative racial worth and decided that slaves were worth 60% of whites. That is a pernicious revision of history, so I think it's important to keep record clear on that point.